September 17, 2009bruman.com1 Title I, No Child Left Behind Act American Recovery & Reinvestment Act Federal Legislative/Executive Update September 17,

September 17, 2009 bruman.com 1

Title I, No Child Left Behind ActAmerican Recovery & Reinvestment Act

Federal Legislative/Executive Update


CHRISTOPHER PORTER, ESQ.

BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT

WWW.BRUMAN.COM

http://www.bruman.com/

http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/index.html

Overview

• Federal Legislative/Executive Update

• School Improvement Grant Funds (FY 09-10 and ARRA)

• ARRA Competitive Grants

– Race to the Top Funds

– Innovation Grant Fund

– State Longitudinal Data Systems

• Title I FY 09-10/Title I ARRA Developments

• ARRA Reporting

• Student Achievement and School Accountability (SASA) Program Monitoring

• Office of Inspector General Audit DevelopmentsSeptember 17, 2009 bruman.com 2bruman.com 2

Federal Legislative/Executive Update

• No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Reauthorization

• American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Effect on NCLB Reauthorization

– State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (Phase II App.)

• FY 2010-2011 Appropriations Allocations



ESEA Reauthorization in 2007

• House Draft Bill imploded for many reasons– Urgency prior to 2008 elections

– Tarnished brand in Congress – Critics from left and right

• Republicans – loss of State/local control

• Democrats – funding issues/sanctions

– Complexity of House Discussion Draft identification schema – multiple measures convoluted

– Complexity of House Discussion Draft intervention schema – tiering of schools (high-priority vs. low- priority schools) convoluted


ESEA Reauthorization in 2007

• House Draft Bill imploded for many reasons (cont.)– Post-9/11 bipartisanship long gone

– Democratic Majority in Congress

– Union antagonism toward teacher effectiveness provisions

– Pushback from State Educational Agencies/Governors


ESEA Reauthorization: Two Years Later

• Evolution of data systems and growth models

• Progress (some) with school turnaround

• Change in union leadership and strategy

• Democratic Administration and Congress and subsequent political strategies


ESEA Reauthorization: Recovery Act

• Is ARRA a “pre-authorization” reform model that will drive ESEA reauthorization?

• Four core education reform priorities

– Human capital: teachers and principals

– Quality and use of academic data to drive instruction

– Common standards and valid/reliable assessments

– School interventions (and charter school innovation).

• Will Secretary Duncan be able to champion the debate and bring Congress along in the fall/spring?

ESEA Reauthorization: Recovery ActSFSF Phase I Application Assurances

• Make improvements in teacher effectiveness and in the equitable distribution of qualified teachers for all students, particularly students who are most in need;

• Establish pre-K-to-college-and-career data systems that track progress and foster continuous improvement;

• Make progress toward rigorous college- and career-ready standards and high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable for all students, including limited English proficient students and students with disabilities; and

• Provide targeted, intensive support and effective interventions for the lowest-performing schools.

September 17, 2009 bruman.com 8bruman.com 8


Recovery Act and Current ESEA Structure

• Section 1111 - accountability systems

– Evolving State standards based accountability system.

– Role of common / national standards?

– 100% grade level proficiency by 2013-2014? Will growth model pilots wean Congress away from this date?

• Section 1116 – interventions

– Impact on choice and SES and cascading interventions?

• Will innovation in “turnaround” and better data and growth models affect intervention schema?



Standards & Assessments

Data Systems

Effective Teachers & Leaders

Struggling Schools

Higher EducationK - 12Early

Learning



• In addition to program changes, there may be fiscal changes

– Re-examine comparability

• Title VII of ARRA – requires reach LEA to file a school-by-school listing of per pupil expenditures by 12/1/09

– Reconsider the fundamental structure of Federal fiscal support

– Is the 1965 ESEA model appropriate to the contemporary education reform focus?

Reauthorization and the SFSF:Phase II Application

• “[ED] proposes specific data and information requirements that a State receiving funds…must meet with respect to statutory assurances.” (7/29/09 Federal Register).

• “[ED intends] to use the data information collected in assessing whether a state is qualified to participate in and receive funds from other reform oriented programs administered by the Department." (7/29/09 Federal Register).

• Comments were due 8/28/09.



• Application requires metrics that include 3 descriptors and 30 indicators

– Of the 30 indicators, nine request confirmation on existing information. It will be pre-populated.

– Of the 21 new indicators, eight are yes/no questions.

• “The beauty of SFSF is that everyone can be a winner.” Ann Whalen, Special Assistant to the Secretary, August 4, 2009.



• State plan (submitted to USDE) must detail :

– current and planned ability to collect the data needed for proposed assurance indicators and descriptors, including the status of the State’s current ability to make the data or information available to the public

OR

– If the State cannot collect or report the data, the plan must describe the process and timeline for developing and implementing the means to do so…

no later than September 30, 2011. September 17, 2009 bruman.com 14bruman.com 14

SFSF Phase II: Achieving Equity in Teacher Distribution [8]

• States and districts will need to collect, publish, and analyze basic information about how districts evaluate:– Teacher and principal effectiveness and

– How districts distribute their highly qualified and effective teachers among schools.

• Principals play a critical role in teaching and learning. – “It is important to highlight inequities that result in low-

income and minority students being taught in schools overseen by ineffective principals at higher rates than other students.”


SFSF Phase II: Teacher Distribution [6 indicators and 2 descriptors]


SFSF Phase II: Data [2 indicators]


SFSF Phase II: Standards and Assessments [13 indicators]


SFSF Phase II: Supporting Struggling Schools

[9 indicators]


Recovery Act: Funding Timeline Leading to Reauthorization?

• State Stabilization, phase 2: Sept./Oct - $16.1 billion (33%)

• IDEA, Parts B & C: Sept. 1 - $6.1 billion (50%) – Update: The remaining 50%, accelerated and to be available to all states on or around

September 1.

• Title I, Part A: Sept. 1 - $5 billion (50%)– Update: The remaining 50%, accelerated and to be available to all states on or around

September 1.

• Title I School Improvement Grant (ARRA and FY 09-10): January 2010 - $3 billion (100%)

• Vocational Rehabilitation: Sept. 1 - $270 million (50%) – Update: The remaining 50%, accelerated and to be available to all states on or around

September 1.

• Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems: Late 2009/Early 2010 - $250 million (100%)

• Teacher Incentive Fund: Early 2010, $200 million (100%)

• Teacher Quality Enhancement: Oct./Nov. 2009, $100 million (100%)


Recovery Act: Funding Timeline Leading to Reauthorization?

• State Stabilization, phase 2: Sept./Oct….Dec., $16.1 billion (33%)

• IDEA, Parts B & C: Sept. 1, $6.1 billion (50%) – Update: The remaining 50%, accelerated and to be available to all states on or around

September 1.

• Title I, Part A: Sept. 1, $5 billion (50%)– Update: The remaining 50%, accelerated and to be available to all states on or around

September 1.

• Title I School Improvement Grant : January 2010 (?), $3 billion (100%)

• Enhancing Education Through Technology: July 24, $650 million (100%)

• Vocational Rehabilitation: Sept. 1, $270 million (50%) – Update: The remaining 50%, accelerated and to be available to all states on or around September 1.

• Statewide Data Systems: Late 2009/ early 2010.…, $250 million (100%)

• Teacher Incentive Fund: Early 2010, $200 million (100%)

• Teacher Quality Enhancement: Oct./Nov., $100 million (100%)



ESEA Reauthorization: Congressional Strategy

• Original architects? Only Rep. George Miller (D-CA) remains

• Vulnerable Democrats are strategic

– Success of Race to the Top

– Recovery Act accountability fatigue


ESEA Reauthorization: Congressional Strategy

• Republican Strategy

– Returning to Federalist roots?

– House Committee on Education and Labor Ranking Member Representative John P. Kline (MN).

• "I'm not looking to tweak No Child Left Behind," Kline said. "As far as I'm concerned, we ought to go in and look at the whole thing." (Nick Anderson, “GOP Leaving ‘No Child’ Behind,” Washington Post, July 13, 2009)


Rebuilding the Conventional Wisdom in DC

• Perspectives from Policy Experts– “Congress should get rid of No Child Left Behind

because it is a failed law. It is dumbing down our children by focusing solely on reading and mathematics. By ignoring everything but basic skills, it is not preparing students to compete with their peers in the high-performing nations of Asia and Europe, nor is it preparing them for citizenship in our complex society. It has usurped state and local control of education. Washington has neither the knowledge nor the capacity to micromanage the nation’s schools.”

Diane Ravitch, education historian and fellow at Brookings Institution.


Rebuilding the Conventional Wisdom in DC

• Retain standards based accountability:– “Standards-based reform works. The No Child Left

Behind Act has worked. We need fixes (not weakening), and we need to make important next steps. But before we listen to those whose failed policies have not worked in the past telling us to kill NCLB, let’s be very, very careful. That would be the absolutely wrong move for our children, particularly poor children and children of color.”

Sandy Kress, former senior advisor to President George Bush.


ESEA Reauthorization Timeline

• In Congressional Committees

– Spring 2010?

• September 2010

– Over / Under?

• Political futures market– https://www.intrade.com/

– http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/index.cfm

https://www.intrade.com/

http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/index.cfm

Recovery Act Funding


FY 2010-2011 Appropriations


School Improvement Grants (NCLB, Sec. 1003(g) funds)



• Funding History – Annual Appropriations

– FY 2002-2003 – FY 2006-2007 – zero funded

– FY 2007-2008 – $125 million

– FY 2008-2009 – $491 million

– FY 2009-2010 – $546 million

• ARRA – $3 billion

• Proposed Requirements in Federal Register (74 FR 43101) for FY 2009-2010 and ARRA funds – 8/26/09

• Comments due by 9/25/09



• ED likely to merge ARRA 1003(g) and FY09 1003(g) into single grant and delay release until Jan. 2010.

• ED seeks focus on same bottom 5% of schools. ED is seeking 4 Models:

1) Turnaround Model: New leadership, staff, plan.

2) Close/Consolidate Model: Close & enroll students elsewhere.

3) Restart Model: Restart under new organization.

4) Transformation Model: Comprehensive transformation.

• Planning is key: ED wants SEAs to develop turnaround zones, special units in SEA to be entrepreneurial and responsible for this effort.


School Improvement Grants

13,457 schools in some form of improvement status under NCLB

4,941 schools in some form of restructuring status (planning + implementation)


Current NCLB Definition of Struggling SchoolsTitle I schools that fail to make AYP for 2+ consecutive years are “in improvement”Schools that fail to make AYP after 4 years are in “corrective action” Schools that fail to make AYP after 5 years are “in restructuring”

(year 5 = planning year; year 6 = implementation) and

must do one of the following: Close and reopen as charter Contract with private management

company Replace all or most staff State management, or Other major governance

restructuring that makes fundamental reforms [most common option taken]

1,000 schools = ED’s annual target for turnarounds

673 schools = 5% of schools in some form of improvement status

247 schools = 5% of schools in some form of restructuring status

Note: There are ~1,600 “dropout factory” schools that are Title I eligible schools.

~3,200 schools in restructuring implementation



Schools enter restructuring at much higher rates than they exit

1521 more schools entered restructuring than exited restructuring over 3 years

* Data from EDFacts; analyzed by OPEPD



The Center in Education Policy (CEP) analyzed five states’ restructuring efforts and found that they often choose the least prescriptive option: “other” (Option 5)

35

SFSF Phase II:ED’s Proposed Definition of Struggling Schools:

Bottom 5% Based on Performance + Growth

September 17, 2009 bruman.com

ED’s Tiered ApproachSFSF Meets SIG


Which schools will receive SIG funds?

There are three tiers of schools that are eligible for SIG funds:

Tier I: The state’s bottom 5% of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring (or the state’s bottom 5 lowest-achieving Title I schools, whichever is greater).*

Tier II: The state’s Title I eligible (but not necessarily participating) secondary schools with equivalently poor performance as Tier I schools.

Tier III: [only for SEAs that have sufficient funding for all Tier I and II schools and still have a surplus of SIG funds] Any state Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring; SEAs will set exact criteria, which could include rewards for schools with low absolute performance but high growth rates over a number years, or the bottom 6–10% of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.

LEAs must prioritize their Tier I schools (i.e., LEAs cannot apply for SIG funds solely for Tiers II or III)

* Draft Notice of Proposed Priority (NPP) on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program proposes that each state define struggling schools within the state

Schools Receiving SIG Funds can Select between 4 Different Models


Turnaround Model Restart ModelReplace principal and at least 50% of the staff, adopt new governance, and implement a new or revised instructional program. This model should incorporate interventions that take into account the recruitment, placement and development of staff to ensure they meet student needs; schedules that increase time for both students and staff; and appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented services/supports.

Close/Consolidate ModelClosing the school and enrolling the students who attended the school in other, higher-performing schools in the LEA.

Transformation Model

Close the school and restart it under the management of a charter school operator, a charter management organization (CMO), or an educational management organization (EMO). A restart school must admit, within the grades it serves, any former student who wishes to attend.

1. Develop teacher and leader effectiveness2. Comprehensive instructional programs using student

achievement data:3. Extend learning time and create community-oriented

schools4. Provide operating flexibility and intensive support

Definition of SIG’sTransformation Model


Under SIG’s transformation model, a school is required to implement all of the following four strategies:

1) Developing teacher and school leader effectiveness.A.Use evaluations that are based in significant measure on student growth to improve teachers’ and school leaders’ performance;B. Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who improve student achievement outcomes and identify and remove those who do not; C.Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement of the transformation model;D.Provide relevant, ongoing, high-quality job-embedded professional developmentE.Implement strategies designed to recruit, place, and retain high-quality staff.

2) Comprehensive instructional reform strategies.A. Use data to identify and implement comprehensive, research-based, instructional programs that are vertically aligned from one grade to the next as well as aligned with State academic standards; and B.Differentiate instruction to meet students’ needs.

3) Extending learning time and creating community-oriented schools.A. Provide more time for students to learn core academic content by expanding the school day, the school week, or the school year, and increasing instructional time for core academic subjects during the school day;B.Provide more time for teachers to collaborate, C.Provide more time for enrichment activities for studentsD.Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement.

4) Providing operating flexibility and sustained support.A.Give the school sufficient operating flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach to substantially improve student achievement outcomes; andB.Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical assistance and related support from the LEA, the SEA, or a designated external lead partner organization (such as a school turnaround organization or an EMO).

SEA Role


1) Identify Tier I and Tier II schools in the State

2) Determine Tier III criteria

3) Establish criteria related to the overall quality of the LEA’s application and to the LEA’s capacity to implement fully and effectively the required interventions

– Must include the extent to which the LEA analyzed the needs of the school and matched an intervention to those needs; the design of the interventions; whether the interventions are part of a long-term plan to sustain gains in student achievement; the coordination with other resources; and whether the LEA will modify its practices, if necessary, to be able to implement the interventions fully and effectively

– If an LEA lacks the capacity to implement one of the four interventions in each of its Tier I schools, the SEA would adjust the size of the LEA’s SIG accordingly.

– Ensure that an LEA with nine or more Tier I and Tier II schools does not implement the same model in more than 50% of those schools.

4) Monitor the LEA’s implementation of interventions in and the progress of its participating schools

5) Hold each Tier I and Tier II school accountable annually for meeting, or being on track to meet, the LEA’s student achievement goals

LEA Role


LEA would be required to:

1) Serve each of its Tier I schools, unless the LEA demonstrates that it lacks sufficient capacity or sufficient funds

2) Implement one of the four models in Tier I and Tier II schools it has the capacity to serve

– An LEA with nine or more Tier I and Tier II schools may not implement the same model in more than 50% of those schools.

3) Provide adequate resources to each Tier I and Tier II school it commits to serve in order to implement fully one of the four proposed interventions

4) Serve Tier I schools before it serves Tier III schools

5) Establish three-year student achievement goals in reading/language arts and mathematics and hold each Tier I and Tier II school accountable annually for meeting, or being on track to meet, those goals

Proposed Flexibility


LEAs serve the number of Tier I and Tier II schools they has the capacity to serve

Tier I and Tier II schools - SIG funds are not “capped”, but instead receive amount need to successfully implement

Waivers

Turnaround or restart schools could receive waivers to permit the school to “start over” under NCLB’s school improvement timeline and waive the choice/SES NCLB provisions.

SEAs and LEAs will receive waivers to expend the funds over three years.

LEAs may receive a waiver to serve Tier II schools

LEAs may receive waivers to enable Tier I schools that are operating targeted assistance programs to operate a schoolwide programs

Proposed Reporting and Evaluation


For schools receiving SIG funds, SEAs will be required to report annual, school-level data on outcome measures and leading indicators

ED is planning a multi-year evaluation of SIG grantees to generate knowledge for the field and to help these schools improve their performance over time.

Proposed Reporting and Evaluation


SIG Comments


Comments due by 9/25/09

To submit comments on our Notice of proposed requirements, go to

www.regulations.gov

or

send your comments via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery.

http://www.regulations.gov/

Race to the Top Funds

• As Secretary Duncan framed it at the kickoff event on Friday July 24, it is an education “moon shot.”

– “It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and this Department will not pass that up.”



• $4.3 billion for the race to the top fund, the state incentive grant fund in the statute.

• Competitive grant designed to encourage and reward states that are implementing significant education reforms across the four core reform / assurance areas.– Implement standards and assessments,

– improving teacher effectiveness and achieving equity and teacher distribution,

– improving collection and use of data, and

– supporting struggling schools.




• States providing 50% of the grant to participating LEAs based on the relative shares of funding under Part A of Title I as required by section 14006(c).

bruman.com 47


• Phase 1: open in late calendar year 2009.

– Fall 2009 – notice inviting applications available

– Two months later applications from the states are due

– First-half 2010 winners announced for phase 1 and feedback for those who did not win.

• Phase 2: open in late spring of 2010.

– Application deadline for phase 2, spring 2010

– Winners announced for phase 2, Sept. 2010

• States that apply in phase 1 but not awarded grants may reapply in phase 2, together with first time States.

• States apply individually and collaboration will be rewarded


RTT: Priorities, requirements & criteria

• The Federal Register notice of July 29, 2009 provides:

– Proposed priorities

– Requirements

– Selection Criteria

• ED expects to set “a high bar on both state reform conditions and reform plan criteria.” (74 FR 37804).

• Comments were due August 28, 2009.


RTT: Proposed Priorities

• Five proposed priorities for the competition

– Priority 1 is absolute (the state must address this in the application).

– Priority 2 is a competitive preference priority (May earn points and use as tiebreaker).

– Priorities 3-5 are invitational priorities. (No points are awarded, USED encourages).


RTT: Proposed Priority 1

Priority 1: Absolute Priority – Comprehensive approach to the four education reform areas.

• How State & participating districts will use the funds for comprehensive and coherent policies and practices designed to increase achievement and reduce the gap as measured by the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP).


RTT: Proposed Priority 2

Priority 2: Competitive preference priority – emphasis on STEM.

– Offering rigorous course of study in STEM

– Cooperation with industry experts and resources

– Prepare more students for advanced study & careers in STEM, including addressing needs of underrepresented groups and women and girls.


RTT: Proposed Priorities 3-4 – “Invitational”

Priority 3: Data Interoperability

• Expanding statewide longitudinal data systems to include or integrate data from special-education, limited English proficiency, early childhood, human resources, finance, health, postsecondary, and other relevant areas.

Priority 4: Program interoperability

• Pre-K-20 coordination and vertical alignment

• How to address early childhood programs, K-12, postsecondary institutions, and workforce organizations to create a more seamless P-20 route for students.


RTT: Proposed Priority 5: invitational

• Priority 5

– School level conditions for reform and innovation that include flexibility and autonomy for:

• Staff selection

• New structures and formats in the school

• Budget flexibility and management

• Promotion based on credit not on time, and provision of comprehensive services to high needs students


RTT: Requirements - Eligibility

1. State must have an approved application under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of SFSF.

2. State must not have “any” legal, statutory, or regulatory barriers to linking student achievement or student growth data to teachers for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation.

– “One of the most effective ways to accurately assess teacher quality is the measure growth and achievement of a teacher’s student.” (p. 37806).

– The capacity to tie teacher data to student achievement data is “fundamental” to race to the top reforms and to the requirement of ARRA that states take action to improve teacher effectiveness. (p. 37806).



RTT: Requirements - Application

• Application must be signed by the Governor, State’s Chief School Officer, and the president of the State Board of Education.

• State must describe progress to date in each of the four education reform areas, including how the state has used other federal and state funding over the last several years to pursue reforms in these areas.

• Provide financial data to compare percentage of total revenues available to the State used to support education (elem., secondary and public high ed.) in FY2009 and FY2008.

bruman.com 56


• Provide a detailed plan for the use of the grant funds for each reform plan criterion that includes seven express elements.– Key activity is undertaken

– Goals and rationale for the activity

– Timeline for implementing

– The parties responsible for implement

– The resources they will use to support the activities (funding, personnel, systems, etc.)

– States annual targets and, where applicable, alignment for the four school years beginning with 2010 – 2011 school year

– Information requested as supporting evidence



• Submit a certification from the State Attorney General … that the State’s statements, descriptions, and conclusions concerning state law are accurate and complete and reasonable.


RTT: Selection Criteria

• Two categories of selection criteria: – State reform condition criteria (rewarding states

that have demonstrated the will and capacity to improve education by creating a regulatory, statutory atmosphere for reform) and

– Reform plan criteria (requires work with participating districts across and within each of the four education reform areas).

• Reminder – Annual report requires progress with respect to performance measures and annual targets. – It must be “ambitious but realistic.”


RTT: Selection CriteriaStandards and Assessments

• State reform condition criteria– (A)(1), (2) Developing and adopting hiqh-quality common

standards and assessments• A State's responses to SFSF Phase 2 application may contain

information responsive, in part, to this State Reform Conditions Criterion, to which the State may refer and incorporate in its Race to the Top application (specifically regarding State Assessments and USDE approval)

• Reform plan criteria– (A)(3) supporting transition to enhanced standards and high

quality assessments• A State's responses to proposed SFSF Phase 2 application, Indicators

(c)(1)-(c)(13) and Descriptor (c)(1) may contain information related to this Reform Plan Criterion.


RTT: Selection CriteriaData Systems

• State reform condition criteria

– (B)(1) fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system.

• The State's responses to proposed Indicator (b)(1) and requirements II.c.1.A and II.c.1.B.(i-iii) in its Stabilization program Phase 2 application may contain responsive information… to which the State can refer and build upon.


RTT: Selection CriteriaData Systems

• Reform plan criteria

– (B)(2) accessing and using state data

– (B)(3) using data to improve instruction

• A State's responses to proposed Indicator (b)(2) and requirements II.c.2.A and II.c.2.B(i-iii) in its SFSF Phase 2 application may contain information related to [these] Reform Plan Criterion, to which the State can refer and build upon in its Race to the Top application.


RTT: Selection CriteriaTeachers and Leaders


– (C)(1) providing alternative pathways for aspiring teachers and principals

• Reform plan criteria

– (C)(2) differentiating teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance

• Cross reference with State's responses to proposed Indicators (a)(2) and (a)(5) and Descriptors (a)(1) and (a)(2) in its SFSF Phase 2 application.

– (C)(3) ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals

• Cross reference State's response to proposed Indicator (a)(1) in its SFSF Phase 2 application.


RTT: Selection CriteriaTeachers and Leaders

• Reform plan criteria– (C)(4) reporting the effectiveness of teacher

and principal preparation programs• Annual targets liking student's achievement data to

the student's teachers and principals and linking this information to the programs where each of those teachers and principals was prepared for credentialing.

– (C)(5) providing effective support to teachers and principals

• high-quality plan to use “rapid-time” student data to inform and guide the support provided to teachers and principals … in order to improve the overall effectiveness of instruction.


RTT: Selection CriteriaSchool Turnaround

• State reform condition criteria– (D)(1) intervening in the lowest performing schools

and districts

– (D)(2) increasing the supply of high-quality charter schools

• Cross reference with a State's responses to proposed Indicator (d)(6) in its SFSF Phase 2 application

• Reform plan criteria– (D)(3) turning around struggling schools

• Cross reference with a State's responses to proposed Indicators (d)(3)-(d)(5) in its SFSF Phase 2 application.


RTT: Selection CriteriaOverall Criteria


– (E)(1) Demonstrating significant progress in the four education reform areas, use of federal funds to promote these reforms, creative law or policy favorable to reform and innovation, increase student achievement and decreased achievement gap as measured on NEAP.

– (E)(2) Making education funding a priority, providing the percent of total revenues used to support elementary, secondary, and public higher education in FY09 compared to FY08.

– (E)(3) Enlisting statewide support and commitment that includes a memoranda of understanding which must be, at a minimum, signed by the LEA superintendent, the president of the local school board, and the local teachers union (if applicable).


RTT: Selection CriteriaOverall Criteria

• Reform plan criteria– (E)(4) Raising achievement and closing gaps

• Targets for increasing student achievement results overall and by students subgroups in reading and math as reported on NAEP.

• Annual targets for increasing graduation rates overall and by student subgroup.

– Cross reference with a State's responses to proposed Indicator (c)(11) in its Stabilization program Phase 2 application that may contain information related to this Reform Plan Criterion.

– (E)(5) Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale, and sustain proposed plans

• The extent to successful administration, disbursement of funds, supporting its success, leveraging in-state and out-of-state economic, political and human capital resources.


RTT: Key definitions

• “Effective” teacher / principal– Students demonstrate (overall/each subgroup) at least one

grade level growth per academic year

• “Highly effective” teacher / principal– Students demonstrate (overall/each subgroup) more than one

grade level growth per academic year

• “Persistently lowest performing schools”

• “High Need LEA”– One or more high poverty school (highest quartile in State by

poverty level)

• “Rapid Time” Data & “Formative Assessment” September 17, 2009 bruman.com 68bruman.com 68

What Works and Innovation Fund

September 17, 2009 bruman.com 6969bruman.com



Up to $750 million in competitive grants to:

(a) Local educational agencies (LEAs), and (b) Partnerships between a nonprofit organization and one

or more LEAs or a consortium of schools

For the purposes:

1. Expand their work and serve as models of best practice2. To allow eligible entities to work in partnership with

private entities and the philanthropic community3. Identify and document best practices that can be shared

and taken to scale.



• Eligibility Requirements Have significantly closed achievement gaps Exceeded State’s AMOs for 2 or more

consecutive years (could be an issue for larger districts)

Significant improvement in others areas such as graduation rates or HQT

Demonstrated effectiveness in partnerships w/ private sector & non-profit entities



How Many Grantees?

State Longitudinal Data Systems

• Funding – Up to $245 million total under ARRA in competitive grants

• Grants (to SEAs only) will range from $2 million to $20 million

• Applications due November 19, 2009

• SEA must submit an application that addresses data system capabilities and interoperability on a statewide level


Title, Part A Issues


Title I Waivers

• Big Issue – Set-asides; per-pupil expenditure requirements

• Waivers under current ESEA section 9401 are available.

• ED invited interested SEAs to apply, on behalf of its LEAs, for a waiver of one or more of the statutory requirements.

• SEA must then require written waivers from LEAs


Title I Flexibility – LEA waivers

• The waiver will allow an LEA, if it so chooses, to exclude some or all of its Title I, Part A, ARRA funds in calculating the set-aside amounts.

– An LEA’s obligation to spend an amount equal to at least 20% of its fiscal year (FY) 2009 Title I, Part A, Subpart 2 allocation on transportation for public school choice and on SES (ESEA section 1116(b)(10); 34 C.F.R. § 200.48).

– The responsibility of a school in improvement to spend 10% of its Title I, Part A funds on professional development (ESEA section 1116(b)(3)(A)(iii); 34 C.F.R. § 200.41(c)(5)).

– The responsibility of an LEA in improvement to spend 10% of its FY 2009 Title I, Part A, Subpart 2 allocation on professional development (ESEA section 1116(c)(7)(A)(iii); 34 C.F.R. § 200.52(a)(3)(iii)).



• (Con’t.) LEA waiver to exclude some or all of its Title I, Part A, ARRA funds in calculating the set-aside amounts.– The responsibility of an LEA to

calculate the per-pupil cap for SES based on its FY 2009 Title I, Part A, Subpart 2 allocation (ESEA section 1116(e)(6); 34 C.F.R. § 200.48(c)).



• Prohibition on an SEA’s ability to grant to its LEAs waivers of the carryover limitation more than once every three years (ESEA section 1127(b)).

• Sec. may grant waivers of MOE for LEAs under Section 9521(c) of the ESEA (for individual program MOE requirements).

• Sec. may grant waivers of MOE for States under Section 1125A(e) of the ESEA.


Title I: Accounting & TransparencySchool Level Expenditures

• Each LEA that receives Title I, Part A ARRA funds must file with the SEA a school-by-school listing of its per-pupil educational expenditures from State and local sources during the 2008-09 school year by December 1, 2009. ARRA Title VIII

• SEA must report to ED by March 31, 2010


School-by-school Listing Per-pupil Educational Expenditures

• What are the requirements?

• ED published a notice of proposed requirements on Sept. 2, 2009 (74 FR 45431) – Seeking expedited approval from OMB of these requirements by Sept. 30, 2009

• Very burdensome reporting requirements



• Personnel salaries, including base salaries, incentive pay, bonuses, and supplemental stipends for mentoring or other additional roles, at the school level for all school-level instructional and support staff. The survey classifications include:

– Instruction: Includes teachers and instructional aides.

– Support services – pupils: Includes guidance counselors, nurses, attendance officers, speech pathologists, and other staff who provide support services for students.

– Support services – instructional staff: Includes salaries for staff involved in curriculum development, staff training, operating the library, media and computer centers.

– Support services – school administration: Includes principals and other staff involved in school administration.



• Personnel salaries at the school level for instructional staff only.

• Personnel salaries at the school level for teachers only.

• Non-personnel expenditures at the school level (if available), such as:

– Professional development for teachers and other staff

– Instructional materials and supplies

– Computers, software, and other technology

– Contracted services such as distance learning services

– Library books and media center learning materials


School-by-school Listing Per-pupil Educational Expenditures: 5 State Sample

• In addition, ED will choose 5 States that will be required to provide more data for more in-depth analysis

• States not chosen yet by ED

• Personnel-level data

• School-level data



• Personnel-level dataset showing the following information for each school staff member:

– School district name and NCES district ID code

– School assignment and NCES school ID code

– Job classification

– Base salary

– Other salary

– Benefits



• School-level dataset showing the following information for each school:

– School district name and NCES district ID code

– School name & NCES school ID code

– Total expenditures – general education

– Total expenditures – special education

– Total state and local expenditures – general education

– Total state and local expenditures – special education

– Total expenditures from federal sources

– Title I expenditures


Title I ARRA– New ED Guidance

• ED released new Title I ARRA Guidance on Sept. 2, 2009 - http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/titlei-reform.pdf

• Overview

– General Principles for Uses

– Determining Allowable Uses

– Standards and High-Quality Assessments

– Data Systems

– Increasing Teacher Effectiveness and Equitable Distribution of Effective Teachers

– Turning Around Lowest-Achieving Title I Schools

– Improving Results for Students in Title I Schools


http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/titlei-reform.pdf

General Principles

• Avoid the Funding Cliff

• Examples:

– Programs that can be easily terminated after 2 years

• New teacher induction programs

• Intensive professional development

• Costs related to attracting effective teachers to Title I Schools

• Conducting pilot programs that can be replicated in the future


Allowable Uses of Funds – Specific Issues

• Supplement not Supplant Restriction and the Presumptions:

– Activities required under Federal, State, and local law

– Activities paid for in prior years with non-Federal funds

– Similar Activities provided to non-Title I and Title I students

• Rebutting the Presumption


Allowable Uses of Funds – Specific Issues

• Be wary of using Title I ARRA for “off the top” uses for Title I, district-wide uses

• Generally, general district-wide initiatives are unallowable (ineligibility and supplanting)

• LEAs may increase per-pupil allocations to all Title I schools (within the ranking/ serving required under Sec. 1113(c))


Allowable Uses: Additional Considerations

• Drive results for students. Will the proposed use of funds drive improved results for failing students

• Increase capacity. Will the proposed use of funds increase educators’ long-term capacity to improve results for Title I students?

• Accelerate reform. Will the proposed use of funds advance SEA, LEA, or participating Title I school improvement objectives and the reform goals encompassed in the ARRA?

• Avoid the “funding cliff” and improve productivity. Will the proposed use of funds avoid recurring costs that SEAs, LEAs, and participating Title I schools are unprepared to assume when the period of availability of the ARRA funds ends? Given the current state of the economy, will the proposed use serve as “bridge funds” to help transition to more effective and efficient approaches?

• Foster continuous improvement. Will the proposed use of funds include approaches to measure and track implementation and results and create feedback loops to modify or discontinue strategies that evidence indicates are ineffective in improving achievement of Title I students?


Allowable Uses:Data Systems

• Hiring data experts to work with Title I staff in low-achieving Title I schools to better analyze student data to improve instruction? YES

• A district-wide data system to track all student achievement? NO

• Develop a pilot system designed to identify and analyze data to improve instruction for low-achieving students? YES

• Extended time for teachers in Title I schools to review data for at-risk students and to identify effective intervention techniques? YES

• District-wide extended time for teachers? NO


Allowable Uses:Increasing Teacher Effectiveness/Distribution

• Financial incentives to attract and retain effective teachers to work in Title I schools? YES

• Financial incentives to recruit in hard-to-staff subjects such as math and science? YES (but only for Title I schools)

• Performance-based compensation program in Title I schools? YES (including a pilot program)

• If an LEA has a performance-based compensation program for all teachers, can use Tit

• Pilot program for induction for new teachers in Title I schoolwide schools? YES

• Stipends to teachers in a Title I school to participate in professional development? YES (if reasonable)

• Professional development for all instructional staff? NO

• LEA in improvement to pay for professional development for all instructional staff? YES


Allowable Uses:Turn Around Lowest-Achieving Schools

• Additional Title I resources in lowest achieving Title I schools to implement rigorous intervention to turn around achievement? YES, but keep in mind ranking and serving and schoolwide vs. targeted assistance – more appropriate for “off the top” activities to serve a subset of low achieving schools

• Contracting with an outside organization (Charter Management Organization or Education Management Organization) to implement a rigorous intervention? YES, but only for a schoolwide program

• Community school model (a school with academics, health and social services, community development, etc.)? YES, but only for a schoolwide program


Recovery Act: Reporting and Accountability

Unique tracking & reporting requirements required for all ARRA funds.



Recovery Act: Reporting and Accountability

U.S. Department of Education (ED) officials have made it clear that they expect unprecedented accountability and reporting for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery) funds.

bruman.com 95bruman.com 95


ARRA Reporting Overview

• Key reporting requirements:– Section 1512 quarterly reporting applies to all

ARRA funds “recipients”

– Section 14008 ARRA SFSF annual reports



Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting

• Reporting applies to recipients and the Recovery Act defines a “Recipient” in sec. 1512 as any entity that receives Recovery Act funds directly from the federal government.

• Prime recipients may delegate certain reporting requirements to sub-recipients. If the reporting is delegated to a sub-recipient, the delegation must be made in time for the sub-recipient to prepare for the reporting, including registering in the system.



Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting: Structure



Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting Structure



Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting Structure

Planning is critical

• Has there been delegation of reporting responsibility?

• If the reporting is delegated to a sub-recipient, the delegation must be made in time for the sub-recipient to prepare for the reporting, including registering in the system.

• If not, prime recipients reporting for the sub-recipients would complete all data elements.



Sec. 1512 Quarterly: Prime & Sub activities

• Register at Federalreporting.gov (both) Aug. 17 registration opens.

– Must have received ARRA award

– Prime must have registered in CCR and DUNS. Sub-recipients need to only register in DUNS.

– May have multiple people registered for a reporting entity.

– Need only register once for multiple awards.

• Report (has there been delegation?)

– 1 –10 days after end of Quarter: Enter reporting data into federal reporting.gov

– May import completed provided “locked” MS-Excel template

– May use XML file conforming to Recipient Reporting XML Schema




• Register at Federalreporting.gov (both) Aug. 17 registration opens.

– Must have received ARRA award

– Prime must have registered in CCR and DUNS. Sub recipients need to only register in DUNS.

– May have multiple people registered for a reporting entity.

– Need only register once for multiple awards.

• Report (has there been delegation?)

– 1 –10 days after end of Quarter: Enter reporting data into federal reporting.gov

– May import completed provided “locked” MS-Excel template

• Don’t mess with the templates! Final version may be complete by early Aug.

– May use XML file conforming to Recipient Reporting XML Schema




• Review – shared duty, BUT burden is ultimately on the prime!

– 11–21 days after end of quarter

– Are there review “business rules” in place?

– Monitoring for redundancies?

– Prime cannot change the sub recipient data, but reviews and comments.

• Correct

– 22-29 days after the end of Quarter



Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting: Timing

• OMB guidance states: initial statutory reporting deadline is October 10, 2009, with quarterly reports to be submitted by recipients 10 days after the end of each calendar quarter thereafter.

• Oct. 10 is a Saturday, but the deadline does not shift to the next Monday.



Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting Duties

• Prime recipients that decentralize reporting at the prime recipient level and/or delegate reporting responsibilities to sub-recipients must take special precautions to ensure coordinated reporting.

• Prime recipients, as owners of the prime and subrecipient data submitted, have the responsibility for the quality of the information submitted.

bruman.com 105105



• Prime must implement internal control measures as appropriate to ensure accurate and complete information. – Avoid material omissions

– Avoid errors

• Sub-recipients delegated to report on behalf of prime recipients share in this responsibility.

• Agencies funding Recovery Act projects and activities provide a layer of oversight that augments recipient data quality.




• Internal control measures are key

– Data review protocol

– Cross-validation of data

– Establishing control totals

– Estimated distribution of expected data



Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting Liability

• Non-compliance with the reporting requirement is considered a violation of the award agreement.

• The award term language is found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 2 CFR Part 176.50.

• The Awarding Agency (ED) may use any customary remedial actions necessary to ensure compliance, including withholding funds, termination, or suspension and debarment, as appropriate.

• No waivers will be granted for any recipients required to report under Section 1512 of the Recovery Act.



Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting Liability

• Federal agencies will perform data quality checks. Will work to identify and remediate instances in which:

– Recipients that demonstrate systemic or chronic reporting problems

– Sub-recipients that demonstrate systemic or chronic reporting problems

– Recipients that demonstrate systemic or chronic deficiencies in reviewing and identifying sub-recipient data quality issues



Sec. 1512 Quarterly: Prime Recipient Data Elements


Funding Agency Code Project/Grant Period End Date

Funding Agency Name Report Period End Date

Program Source (TAS) Final Report

Award Number Report Frequency

Recipient DUNS Number Award Type

Recipient Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) Award Date

Recipient Type Award Description

Solicitation/CFDA number Amount of Award

Recipient Account Number Project Name

Project/Grant Period Start Date Project Status- Not started; Less than 50% completed; Completed 50% or more; etc.

Project Description


Sec. 1512 Quarterly: Prime Recipient Data Elements


Description of Jobs Created/Retained Primary Place of Performance – State

Number of Jobs Primary Place of Performance-Location Code

Federal Expenditure Primary Place of Performance-County Code (optional)

Total Infrastructure Expenditure Primary Place of Performance – Zip Code

Total Federal ARRA Expenditure Primary Place of Performance Congressional District

Total Federal Non-ARRA Expenditure Recipient Area of Benefit

Total of Non-Federal Share of Expenditure

Total Aggregate Amount of payments to vendors under $25,000 (do not need to name vendor)

Infrastructure Rationale

Payments to Vendors more than $25,000 (must name vendor)

State/Local Contact Congressional District

Sub-awards to individuals


Sec. 1512 Quarterly: Sub-Recipient Data Elements


Sub-Recipient Place of Performance Sub-Recipient Congressional District (required)

Sub-Recipient Place of Performance-Location Code Amount of Sub-Award

Sub-Recipient Place of Performance-County Code (optional)

Sub-Award Date

Sub-Recipient Place of Performance-ZIP CodeSub-Award Period Start Date

Sub-Recipient Place of Performance –Congressional District Sub-Award Period Start Date

Sub-Recipient Area of Benefit Sub-Award Period End Date

Sub-Recipient DUNS Number Sub-Award Number


Sec. 1512 Quarterly: Prime recipient data elements

• Project Description– Prime is responsible for reporting a statewide

view, not sub recipient project. – For an award that funds multiple projects or

activities, such as a formula block grant, the purpose and outcomes or results may be stated in broad terms.

– “Description of the overall purpose and expected outputs and outcomes or results of the award and first-tier Subaward(s), including significant deliverables and, if appropriate, units of measure.”



Sec. 1512 Quarterly ReportingPrime recipient data elements

• Description of Jobs Created/Retained

– Prime recipients are required to generate estimates of job impact by directly collecting specific data from sub-recipients and vendors on the total FTE resulting from the sub-award

– Prime recipients will report the number created and retained using a standard calculation, translating both full and part time employees into “full-time equivalents”, or FTEs, then adding the total hours worked by all employees in the quarter, and dividing by the total hours in a full-time schedule



Calculating Jobs Created



Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting: Prime Recipient Data Elements

• Description of Jobs Created/Retained

– Gather information from the sub and first vendor level. Prime collects directly from them.

– Prime may run statistical sample.

– Not seeking indirect job impact.



Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting: Prime recipient

Review



SFSF Annual Reporting Requirements

• For each year of the program, the State receiving SFSF must submit a report describing eight identified elements.

• As with Sec. 1512, the report requires a description of the uses of funds and the number of estimated jobs saved or created with the funds.

• Unlike Section 1512 reporting, however, the focus is less on recipient information, description of activity, and evaluation of progress. It is focused on the education assurances of the SFSF.




• Specifically, the Section 14008 annual State report must include, among the eight requirements, the State’s progress in:

(1) The uses of funds

(2) State distribution the funds it received under this title;

(3) The number of jobs that the Governor estimates were saved or created with funds the State received

(4) Tax increases that the Governor estimates were averted because of the availability of SFSF funds




• State Annual Reporting Requirements (cont.)

(5) State progress in reducing inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers, in implementing a State longitudinal data system, and in developing and implementing valid and reliable assessments for limited English proficient students and children with disabilities

(6) Tuition and fee increases for in-State students imposed by public institutions of higher education in the State

(7) Extent to which public institutions of higher education maintained, increased, or decreased enrollment of in-State students, including students eligible for Pell Grants or other need-based financial assistance; and

(8) Description of each modernization, renovation and repair project funded, which shall include the amounts awarded and project costs.



ED Promises More Guidance

• More Accountability and Reporting Guidance is Pending

• All Guidance Must be Approved by OMB



Resources & Questions

• United States Department of Education: www.ED.gov/recovery

• OMB Webinar training materials: http://www.whitehouse.gov/Recovery/WebinarTrainingMaterials/

• www.FederalReporting.gov • Brustein & Manasevit, www.bruman.com


http://www.ed.gov/recovery

http://www.whitehouse.gov/Recovery/WebinarTrainingMaterials/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/Recovery/WebinarTrainingMaterials/

http://www.federalreporting.gov/



SASA Program Monitoring

• SASA now administers Titles I and III

• Monitoring Schedule for 2009-10

– 28 States

• Title I monitoring - 14

• Title III monitoring - 10

• Monitoring both Titles I and III - 4

• Florida – Title I only – Nov. 16-20, 2009



SASA Program Monitoring

• Common Recent Findings– Instructional paraprofessional not working under the direct supervision of

an HQT

– Failure to properly use 1% for Parental Involvement activities

– Incomplete/Inadequate Schoolwide Program Plans

– Failure to include private schools in Parental Involvement and Professional Development activities (or otherwise provide them)

– Failure to monitor use of equipment and materials in private schools

– Failure to properly identify eligible private school students

– Failure to properly supervise use of contractors for equitable services

– Unallowable use of Title I funds for screening ELLs for core language instruction educational programs



OIG Audit Developments

• New Audit Findings for Title I, Part A Audits:

– Use of P-Cards without documentation to demonstrate allowability

– Use of P-Cards in violation of State and district policy, such as restrictions on types of purchases (food, small supplies) and threshold amount

– Failure to supervise use of P-Cards

– Costs Incurred without State approval (over a certain threshold amount)




• ARRA allocated $14 million to ED’s OIG

• OIG ARRA Audits of Title I ARRA

– Two formats – (1) Procedures and Process-driven audit and (2) Follow-up audit based on actual expenditures

• Unusual to receive audit before the end of the period of availability (Sept. 30, 2011)

• What will be the consequences? Repayment?

• OIG has selected SEAs and generally 3 LEAs within that jurisdiction (1 small, 1 medium, 1 large)




• SEA Procedures and Process - Audit Findings– Lack of Verification of Expenses by the SEA – failure to monitor

expenditures reported (total expenditures to date only required)

– Insufficient Monitoring of fiscal areas, such as internal controls over financial recordkeeping, procurement, reporting, inventory and payroll

– Lack of Monitoring of LEA Interest Earned on Federal Funds

– Lack of Progress in Establishing Process and Controls to Ensure Compliance with ARRA Reporting Requirements

– Written Agreements with State agencies delegating authority did not properly delineate roles (between Governor’s office, SEA, other state agencies, and LEAs)




• What will the Auditors ask?

• Topics include:

– Cash Management Differentiation between ARRA and non-ARRA Title I/IDEA funds

SEA/LEA accounting codes

Expenditures – Central level only or at the School level?

P-Cards for ARRA funds?

Tracking obligations

Who actually draws down the funds?

Forward funding or Reimbursement method for Federal funds?

Policies, Procedures, Organizational charts




• More Topics:

– Data Quality Data regarding Program Effectiveness?

Who is responsible for inputting financial information and creating financial reports?

Security within the system (screen locks, log-ins, etc.)

How are the jobs created and saved being measured?

– Monitoring Is there formal monitoring (fiscal and programmatic)?

Risk assessments

Who monitors payroll expenditures?

Policies for monitoring expenditure of ARRA funds?




• More Topics:

– Use of Funds LEA application for SFSF funds

Are there policies to monitor supplement not supplant violations?

Who sets up the account codes for tracking ARRA funds?

ARRA initiatives (SFSF, Title I, and IDEA)

– Contracting/Procurement Policies and Procedures (sole source and small purchases especially)

Staff training

Hard copy or electronic system for requisitions, invoices, etc.? How quickly does the system function?

Competitive bidding?



Disclaimer

This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice. Attendance at the presentation or later review of these printed materials does not create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit. You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances.


PLANET HOLLYWOOD RESORT Las Vegas, Nevada

Cost of Workshop: $650For more information please

contact:Brustein & Manasevit

[email protected]

Brustein & Manasevit

2009 Fall Forum on Federal Education Grants Management

“TRANSPARENCY AND CHANGE: BALANCING STIMULUS FUNDS, ESEA REAUTHORIZATION AND

FEDERAL GRANTS MANAGEMENT”

DECEMBER 3 & 4, 2009

mailto:[email protected]


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Las_Vegas_Paris10.jpg

Documents

September 17, 2009bruman.com1 Title I, No Child Left Behind Act American Recovery & Reinvestment Act Federal Legislative/Executive Update September 17,